(영문) 대구지방법원 안동지원 2017.06.13 2016고단760

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 안동지원 2017.06.13 2016고단760

교통사고처리특례법위반(치사)

Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of C Disease Control Vehicles.

On May 26, 2016, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 09:30 on May 26, 2016, and led to the passage of the front road D from Pung-Eup to the port of Pung-Eup.

In this case, the driver has a duty of care to operate safely by accurately operating the steering gear and the steering gear and the steering gear. The driver has a duty of care to reduce the speed to the person engaged in driving service and properly operating the steering gear and the steering gear.

Even though the Defendant neglected this, the Defendant did not go slowly, but did not warn the victim E (the 86-year age) at the point of entry into the front road of the front road, but did not warn the victim E (the 86-year age) of entering the road by sounding the border. Even if the victim viewed the road to enter the road, the victim presumed the road to proceed beyond the center line and the opposite lane to the opposite lane, and the remaining side of the victim presumed to proceed to the opposite lane is unlikely to reduce the speed immediately, and the victim was forced to go back to the left-hand left-hand side of the front part of the pest control vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s occupational negligence in the same year

6. 15. Around 08:57, G hospitals located in the Ansan-si F have received treatment, resulting in the death of a victim due to cardio-cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebralop.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of inspection by this court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A survey report on actual conditions;

1. A death certificate;

1. On-site photographs (the Defendant and the defense counsel could not recognize the Defendant’s occupational negligence). However, according to the evidence above, the Defendant would have immediately operated the system while putting a light when the Defendant saw that he would have entered the road by lowering the speed from the sobro, and the first victim would have entered the road.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2016.09.06 2016고단508

-대법원 1977. 3. 8. 선고 77도409 판결

-서울동부지방법원 2017.06.21 2016고단4071

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2021.01.13 2020고단450

-청주지방법원 2018.10.25 2018고단284